Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVII

[Yora]

I got an Armored Vehicle Question:

Why did the German Army in World War 2 produce both the Sturmgeschütz IV and the Jagdpanzer IV. Both use the Panzer IV chasis, with the same engine, and initially the same gun. That seems rather redundant.

I did find out that the StuG IV was produced because the StuG III factory was badly damaged, and the factory that took over for it only had production lines for Panzer IV chasis but not Panzer III chasis. But the Jagdpanzer IV seems to have already started production at that time.

Where they unable to wait for new Jagdpanzer production lines being set up and StuG IV was the compromise they could get at such short notice? I imagine in 1944, building more Jagdpanzer facilities would have been difficult, which could explain why StuG IV production continued for the rest of the war. Would make sense to me, or does it have any performance reasons why they would have wanted to have both in production?

[Max_Killjoy]

I got an Armored Vehicle Question:

Why did the German Army in World War 2 produce both the Sturmgeschütz IV and the Jagdpanzer IV. Both use the Panzer IV chasis, with the same engine, and initially the same gun. That seems rather redundant.

I did find out that the StuG IV was produced because the StuG III factory was badly damaged, and the factory that took over for it only had production lines for Panzer IV chasis but not Panzer III chasis. But the Jagdpanzer IV seems to have already started production at that time.

Where they unable to wait for new Jagdpanzer production lines being set up and StuG IV was the compromise they could get at such short notice? I imagine in 1944, building more Jagdpanzer facilities would have been difficult, which could explain why StuG IV production continued for the rest of the war. Would make sense to me, or does it have any performance reasons why they would have wanted to have both in production?

For starters, the StuG was an assault gun, while the Jagd was a tank destroyer, at least in intent.

The arms industry in that state at that time was also highly convoluted and political, meaning that designs that looked quite similar were often being developed, built, and fielded in parallel.

[Storm Bringer]

I got an Armored Vehicle Question:

Why did the German Army in World War 2 produce both the Sturmgeschütz IV and the Jagdpanzer IV. Both use the Panzer IV chasis, with the same engine, and initially the same gun. That seems rather redundant.

I did find out that the StuG IV was produced because the StuG III factory was badly damaged, and the factory that took over for it only had production lines for Panzer IV chasis but not Panzer III chasis. But the Jagdpanzer IV seems to have already started production at that time.

Where they unable to wait for new Jagdpanzer production lines being set up and StuG IV was the compromise they could get at such short notice? I imagine in 1944, building more Jagdpanzer facilities would have been difficult, which could explain why StuG IV production continued for the rest of the war. Would make sense to me, or does it have any performance reasons why they would have wanted to have both in production?

too add to Max_Killjoy's comment, the STUG IV was a (relatively) minor modification to the existing PzKpfw IV hull, with the STUG III superstructure smacked onto it, while the Jadgpanzer IV was effectively a new vehicle above the lower hull, with new, sloped armour plates. It would be much, much easier to convert a panzer IV line to make STUG IVs than to make Jadgpanzer IV, as the STUG line could reuse a lot more of the existing panzer IV machine tools and Production workers in the same or only slightly modied ways, thus getting the STUG into production quicker and upto to speed sooner as well.



That, and they were being built by Krupp, who made the Panzer IV, not Daimler-Benz, who made the Panzer III. That seems like it shouldn't matter, but the whole Third Reich was riven with empire building form the highest levels down, actively encouraged by Hitler (a classic "divide and conquer" strategy, by setting his underlings at each others throats he creates a situation where their is a constant need for him to intervene in disputes, and thus make himself indispensable). this, combined with a"Winner takes all" approach to equipment purchasing, where the winning designer got all the spoils and the losers got nothing, lead to multiple, mutually incompatible designs getting produced to satisfy the various parties.

The Americans approached this very differently, with the government striving to standardise on as few different pieces of equipment for a given task as possible, and then giving all the companies contracts to produce the winning design (so they still made money and stayed in business even if their design flopped). They also sometimes brought the second best design into service, in case of a hidden flaw or other problem with the winner (The B-17 and B-24 are examples of this duel approach, as is the p39/p40, the p47 &p51, etc)

This is why the US only had one light tank (the M3/M5 stuart), two medium tanks (the M3 as a stopgap, then the M4 Sherman), one rifle (the M1 Garand), etc, while the brits and germans might have two or three designs in the same categories.

[Pauly]

There’s a big problem of perspective in the assauly gun -v- tank destroyer assessment.

Modern assessment has a lot to do of putting AFVs in matchups against one another. World of Tanks, Warthunder, (online) Flames of war (miniatures wargames) for example.

However irl assault guns were designed to take out targets such as pillboxes and ATGs and TDs were designed to take out tanks.

For example the Soviet ISU122 ansd ISU152 are treated as heavy tank destroyers and modern authors make a big deal of their different boom sticks. Yet in Soviet doctrine they were both “Heavy Assault Guns” and they were treated as being functionally identical.

[Max_Killjoy]

There’s a big problem of perspective in the assauly gun -v- tank destroyer assessment.

Modern assessment has a lot to do of putting AFVs in matchups against one another. World of Tanks, Warthunder, (online) Flames of war (miniatures wargames) for example.

However irl assault guns were designed to take out targets such as pillboxes and ATGs and TDs were designed to take out tanks.

That's why I linked to the articles, so that the different intended purposes of the two vehicles being asked about could be looked at.

[Pauly]

That's why I linked to the articles, so that the different intended purposes of the two vehicles being asked about could be looked at.

I was giving some context ad to why modern audiences find the difference confusing. A bit like how RPGs have completely screwed up a lot of perceptions of armor

[snowblizz]

For example the Soviet ISU122 ansd ISU152 are treated as heavy tank destroyers and modern authors make a big deal of their different boom sticks. Yet in Soviet doctrine they were both “Heavy Assault Guns” and they were treated as being functionally identical.

Also a case of "we have these heavy guns, now we need to put them onto something" IIRC. Where they had thousands of 122 and 152 mm guns (I think slightly obsolete pieces) to turn into assault guns? And I believe in actual battlefield effect they were more or less the same. At the ranges an assualt gun operates and the targets it hits a 122 makes as much of a boom as 152 does.


It's kind of funny how the purportedly ultra-capitalist Americans worked more on centralized and socialist principles whereas the purportedly centralist and socialist N-word Germany worked much more with a decentralised and individualistic (in some measures) way (ad-hoc and hap-hazard may be better words).

The former is naturally a much more resource efficient way to conduct a war-effort. Although the "flexibility" of the latter system did I'd almost want say help in the later stages when you have scrougne something up. Although as badly as the German economic system was ordered for warproduction I'm not confident in saying anything really helped.

[ExLibrisMortis]

[...] the purportedly centralist and socialist N-word Germany [...]

Centralist perhaps, but never socialist (not even purportedly). The name "national socialism" was chosen opportunistically (for framing reasons) and has approximately nothing to do with what policies they supported.

[gkathellar]

It's kind of funny how the purportedly ultra-capitalist Americans worked more on centralized and socialist principles

In fact the US government built and owned the overwhelming majority of its own WW2 production facilities, while tapping existing industrial corporations mostly for their alleged expertise in designing and running factories. At war’s end, Congress granted the overwhelming majority of these facilities to private interests as gifts, on the general premise that it was inappropriate for the federal government to own the majority of the nation’s manufacturing capacity.

In general, all the major participants in WW2 had what were effectively command economies, primarily differentiated in how efficient and centralized they were. You could make a case that Japan’s zaibatsu represented true state capitalism, but the results were the same in practice.

[Pauly]

Also a case of "we have these heavy guns, now we need to put them onto something" IIRC. Where they had thousands of 122 and 152 mm guns (I think slightly obsolete pieces) to turn into assault guns? And I believe in actual battlefield effect they were more or less the same. At the ranges an assualt gun operates and the targets it hits a 122 makes as much of a boom as 152 does.


It's kind of funny how the purportedly ultra-capitalist Americans worked more on centralized and socialist principles whereas the purportedly centralist and socialist N-word Germany worked much more with a decentralised and individualistic (in some measures) way (ad-hoc and hap-hazard may be better words).

The former is naturally a much more resource efficient way to conduct a war-effort. Although the "flexibility" of the latter system did I'd almost want say help in the later stages when you have scrougne something up. Although as badly as the German economic system was ordered for warproduction I'm not confident in saying anything really helped.

American planners made a decision to plan for an overseas war without the ability to refit in the home factories.
German planners assumed there would not be an extended war and were forced to make ad hoc decisions to ncrease production when an extended war came about. The military was forced to adopt what could be produced.

Neither situation has anything to do with capitalism or socialism.

[LudicSavant]

I've been looking for info about the sort of armor marine / naval warriors would wear. Any experts care to weigh in?

[Pauly]

I've been looking for info about the sort of armor marine / naval warriors would wear. Any experts care to weigh in?

When and where?

The most usual answer through history is that they used standard infantry equipment that had been adapted for exposure to salt water.

[Kiero]

I've been looking for info about the sort of armor marine / naval warriors would wear. Any experts care to weigh in?

As Pauly said, where and when?

Here's something I wrote earlier about Ptolemaic (and Hellenistic) marines - for eastern Mediterranean 3rd to 1st century BC:

Early Ptolemaic marines would probably have been like Athenian ones, given that was a relatively successful model for a good century or more. That would mean a mixture of hoplites (ie heavy spearmen with big shields - if they went overboard in armour, they drowned) and archers (often steppe peoples like Skythians - composite bows and long daggers, armour was rare).

However, as time went on, they tended to recruit their sailors and marines from southern Anatolia and the Aegean islands. Karians and Pisidians, along with Cypriots, Kretans and Rhodians. They all preferred lighter panoplies; helmets and smaller shields (pelte, small thureoi), some might have textile body armour (but not universal as with hoplites), with missile weapons (javelins mostly, but possibly bows for the Kretans, slings for the Rhodians) and swords for backup. Those javelins might include some heavier, dual-purpose ones like the longche, which was robust enough to be used as a spear as well as balanced for throwing.

Some of the reasons for the shift were the Ptolemaioi's problems with getting Greek manpower (since they didn't hold the mainland, only some islands, and got most of their Greeks as mercenaries) and the general increase in the size of marine complements. In the era of Athenian dominance, the primary naval platform was the trieres/trireme, which had limited space on deck (if it was aphract, then it didn't have much of a deck beyond a central board for the sailors to get about). Their complement tended to be just over a dozen, weighted primarily towards hoplites for defense against boarding. The oarsmen were always a potential emergency reserve of makeshift marines, since they outnumbered dedicated marines tenfold, and that's probably where the Athenian skirmishers at the battle of Sphacteria came from. Give them some javelins and you have a force of light infantry. That was a risky move, though, since they were also your motive force.

However, following Demetrios Poliorketes success at the battle of Salamis in 306BC, which was mostly due to his much heavier battle line, the standard battleship moved to the penteres/quinquireme, which not only had more oarsmen, but much more deck space. Their marine complements were 30-40 men each along with the addition of ship-board artillery. For a power already struggling to find Greeks to fill it's army and administration, using them for marines as well was too much of a stretch. Thus the employment of coastal peoples from lands they controlled in southern Anatolia.

Not sure about artillery, it doesn't seem to have been given much time even in the books I've read about Demetrios Poliorketes and his siege of Rhodes, for example. The ammunition used by some of them them (all-iron bolts) must have been ruinously expensive.

Romans simply deployed legionaries to their ships and treated them like mobile battle platforms, preferring to board enemy vessels.

[Clistenes]

I've been looking for info about the sort of armor marine / naval warriors would wear. Any experts care to weigh in?

I have read that some Spanish marines from the XVI-XVII centuries modified their cuirasses so they could remove them unfasting a single buckle. They also used swords that were shorter than infantry's. They favoured half-pikes (spears) over halberds, it seems. Sailors and corsairs seemed fond of short, heavy machete-like falchions...

For long voyages they took crossbows with them, jus in case they ran short of gunpowder and ammo...

[Pauly]

Some more generalities:
- marines were not expected to undertake long campaigns. So they didn’t have seige engines or artillery or supply trains. It was a case of relying on what support their ship could provide.
- their role was primarily ship defense, although shore raiding and shore security were important considerations.
- in eras where ship to ship boarding took place they were often used in boarding parties.

The USMC is not filling the traditional role of “marine” as it is traditionally understood, unlike the Royal Marines.

[Mike_G]

Some more generalities:
- marines were not expected to undertake long campaigns. So they didn’t have seige engines or artillery or supply trains. It was a case of relying on what support their ship could provide.
- their role was primarily ship defense, although shore raiding and shore security were important considerations.
- in eras where ship to ship boarding took place they were often used in boarding parties.

The USMC is not filling the traditional role of “marine” as it is traditionally understood, unlike the Royal Marines.

The role of the US Marines changed in WWI. Prior to that, they were used as you describe. Boarding actions, shore raiding, etc. Often small Marine units would be part of an army, such as at the battles of Trenton and New Orleans or the storming of Chapultapec in Mexico, but it was almost always a small company of Marines in a large army under control of an Army general.

In WWI, the US fielded a Marine Brigade of several regiments. Then in WWII, Marines fought in Division strength in the Pacific, and have operated as a major land force in every conflict since.

[Protato]

I'm wondering, for the sake of a game I might want to run, what might a World War III look like in the context of the following scenario? A very conservative, hawkish U.S allies with Russia in the mid 2010s or early 2020s and takes some of NATO with them to form a new alliance, lets call them the Euro-America Confederation, with the rest of NATO taking up arms against this new alliance. One of the nations in this war is a fictional nation in Europe called Aclien about the size of Great Britain with less influence, but with a considerable amount of public works and a military with reasonably modern equipment, much of it locally manufactured Cold War tech that's been modernized. The military's size isn't enormous but is meant to function mainly as a defensive force, with few weapons suited for invasion or large-scale bombing campaigns.

In such a situation, what might a good reason for invading Aclien, and what would the rest of the world be doing? Who would still be with NATO and who would be part of the EAC? Where would China and India be in all this? Additionally, I'm thinking of a reason for Russia to occupy a city and right now my reasoning for a battle being waged is a radio tower. If Russia can take the radio tower it takes away both a military resource and a civilian one, plus it allows for propaganda and military orders to be more easily spread in the nation they're invading. I don't know if the defenders would rather hold onto it or if its worth destroying even at the cost of infrastructure and rebuilding, plus depriving one's own forces of such an asset, however.

[snowblizz]

Oh this is gonna be skirting real world politics something fierce!

Without the USA there's no NATO. Effectively. I would chose to consider it what exists as an idea already. The EU as a military alliance. Which comes from exactly that idea, to balance out overbearing US interest against Russian aggression.

very conservative, hawkish U.S allies with Russia in the mid 2010s or early 2020s and takes some of NATO with them to form a new alliance

That's sort of a strategic gameover in Europe though. There's no winning that that's not nuclear and everybody loses.

It's also not a World War since one side of participants has no real world connections that matters.

In such a situation, what might a good reason for invading Aclien, and what would the rest of the world be doing?

There is no good reason to invade other countries (not that the bad reason are exactly stopping anyone). The world would do what it does right now when such things happens. Pee and moan about it and not a fat lot else. Unless a superpower sees self interest. But you've put the meaningful ones on the same side.

The logic of a world war in the 1940s and one now are massively different. It's really not possible to try and reenact a WW2 with modern equipment which it sounds like you are trying to do.

Who would still be with NATO and who would be part of the EAC?

You've just invented a new country in Europe which completely and irrevocably throws off any semblance of real world parallells.
So anything you like. Might as well do dragons and magic.

There's so many things sprouting off this. Where is it? What country(ies) does now not exist? How did that change Europe in the preceding 500 years?

Where would China and India be in all this?

Who knows. My guess, nowhere near it. Why would they care. They are most definitely not going to get involved.

Additionally, I'm thinking of a reason for Russia to occupy a city

They don't need a reason. Has been proven on multiple occasions.

Also a lot of the question from earlier apply. Where is this city in relation to anything else?

If Russia can take the radio tower it takes away both a military resource and a civilian one, plus it allows for propaganda and military orders to be more easily spread in the nation they're invading. I don't know if the defenders would rather hold onto it or if its worth destroying even at the cost of infrastructure and rebuilding, plus depriving one's own forces of such an asset, however.

Who cares about radio towers in 2020? If you use radio communications you most definitely do not need (or want) some civilian tower to do so. The only thing it accomplishes is there's now no talk radio shows or easylistening pop channels.

[Clistenes]

Who cares about radio towers in 2020? If you use radio communications you most definitely do not need (or want) some civilian tower to do so. The only thing it accomplishes is there's now no talk radio shows or easylistening pop channels.

Analogic radio is harder to block than other mass media communication tech. You can transmite from other countries and receive the signal with a receptor a child could build with stuff he picked from trascans...

That said, taking a radio tower in a single city would be useless if the rest of the country's infraestructures work normally...

[Kaptin Keen]

I'm wondering, for the sake of a game I might want to run, what might a World War III look like in the context of the following scenario? A very conservative, hawkish U.S allies with Russia in the mid 2010s or early 2020s and takes some of NATO with them to form a new alliance, lets call them the Euro-America Confederation, with the rest of NATO taking up arms against this new alliance. One of the nations in this war is a fictional nation in Europe called Aclien about the size of Great Britain with less influence, but with a considerable amount of public works and a military with reasonably modern equipment, much of it locally manufactured Cold War tech that's been modernized. The military's size isn't enormous but is meant to function mainly as a defensive force, with few weapons suited for invasion or large-scale bombing campaigns.

In such a situation, what might a good reason for invading Aclien, and what would the rest of the world be doing? Who would still be with NATO and who would be part of the EAC? Where would China and India be in all this? Additionally, I'm thinking of a reason for Russia to occupy a city and right now my reasoning for a battle being waged is a radio tower. If Russia can take the radio tower it takes away both a military resource and a civilian one, plus it allows for propaganda and military orders to be more easily spread in the nation they're invading. I don't know if the defenders would rather hold onto it or if its worth destroying even at the cost of infrastructure and rebuilding, plus depriving one's own forces of such an asset, however.

By my estimate, Europe could easily fight off Russia. Europe might conceivably achieve a stalemate against the US - it would never win, but might make invasion too costly for the US to win either.

However, a divided europe against America, Russia and the rest of Europe is no contest at all: That just get's steamrolled.

So for me, to make your scenario believable, you need - at least - to break up the US. A post-future-civil-war US, with only blue or red states, allied with Russia and the UK (let's be honest, they're the only ones who would) just might be slightly challenged by a European (+Turkey, maybe) Alliance.

Why invade Aclien? As a beach head, to hit vital infrastructure (production, ports, airfields?), because it's the weakest link in the chain?

[snowblizz]

Analogic radio is harder to block than other mass media communication tech. You can transmite from other countries and receive the signal with a receptor a child could build with stuff he picked from trascans...

That said, taking a radio tower in a single city would be useless if the rest of the country's infraestructures work normally...

Yes but if you are an invading military you have your own communications network with you and not expecting to rely on existing radio towers you may or may not be able to hook up to, but the enemy most assuredly has better access to. It'd be like capturing a city's telepone exchange and using it to rely your orders. Sure now you got tele communication, but the defenders are likely already got the wiretaps in that system placed.

Similarly a defending military would not be building their communications on the availability on civilian infrastructure.

Basically only the defending civilian populations would be the ones actually having a use for a radio tower. It's of little value to an invader to capture beyond talking to the populace just occupied. It'd be saying the military objective of capturing a radio tower is to talk to the captured population we don't have until we capture the radio tower.

It really sounds like trying to refight WW2 with WW2 era assumptions just with modern tanks.

[Brother Oni]

Analogic radio is harder to block than other mass media communication tech. You can transmite from other countries and receive the signal with a receptor a child could build with stuff he picked from trascans...

I half remember an anecdote regarding this from the 80s, where a country was at war and the government controlled all the broadcast stations, so the only way the rebels could get accurate information was from the BBC World Service news being broadcast from a neutral country.

I want to say it was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but I vaguely remember the transmitters being in Thailand, so possibly a SE Asia conflict?

[Thiel]

Analogic radio is harder to block than other mass media communication tech. You can transmite from other countries and receive the signal with a receptor a child could build with stuff he picked from trascans...

Chuck a bomb at it then. No more radio tower and no need to engage in costly urban combat.

[Protato]

From the sounds of it, a radio tower may be a poor objective. I'm wondering, what else might be a good choice? Perhaps some sort of mineral mines? Urban warfare is very costly, especially if its two national armies and not a national army versus a militia, so I need something that can justify the sheer cost of such an operation. In the backstory, I think I'd also make the U.S split into two nations, rather than just one at this point, as a truly united United States versus pretty much anyone would be a fiasco for basically the whole world. Additionally, I'm not wanting for there to be a nuclear war. In this setting, it'd be less Fallout and more Threads if one were to occur and I'm hoping what I've written wouldn't result in nuclear war, because then there's basically no setting.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If you want military targets, I imagine airfields, harbours, weapon depots, and missile silos are good objectives.
If the target must be civilian, you could take over internet infrastructure, but I'm not certain how effective that would be, given that the internet is rather decentralized. At best, you could slow down or prevent unwanted information spreading via social media or news websites, which might help you win a propoganda war, but that's a different matter.

[Brother Oni]

If the target must be civilian, you could take over internet infrastructure, but I'm not certain how effective that would be, given that the internet is rather decentralized. At best, you could slow down or prevent unwanted information spreading via social media or news websites, which might help you win a propoganda war, but that's a different matter.

While the internet is decentralised, access to the internet is not - if all your data goes through a few routers, then control of those routers will let you effectively shutdown internet access at will (e.g. the Great Firewall of China). In a similar vein, mobile phone towers - why bother trying to jam a large area when you can simply disable everybody's coverage by controlling a few key sites.

Given the average technological capability of the general populace, simply disabling DNS access will cripple most people - I type in www.google.com rather than 216.58.206.100.

[gkathellar]

What does field treatment for an arrow-wound look like? A real combat arrow with barbs and the works, still in the target and fully intact when the medic reaches them. What steps does the medic take, immediately and over relatively the short term? What changes if they know that hospitalization may not be available for several hours?

I'm equally interested in modern answers and period ones, if anyone here happens to know anything about medieval battlefield medicine.

Obviously this is going to vary quite a bit depending on where the arrow hit, so for the sake of simplicity let's assume no major arteries or organs have been penetrated (although if anyone feels able to go into that, I'd appreciate it even more).

Thanks.

[Kaptin Keen]

I'm wondering, what else might be a good choice? Perhaps some sort of mineral mines?

How about some sort of internet infrastructure? My country, Denmark, has an unusually high number of really really huge data centers. Those might not be much of a military objective - I simply don't know enough to be sure - but for modern information warfare, any chance to spread misinformation and fake news from seemingly legit sources might be well worth it.

Otherwise, all the traditional objectives apply: Ports, airfields, production, roads, rivers, passes and bridges.

Um. Fuel storage, by the way. Warfare consumes ludicrous amounts of fuel. Crude oil goes to refineries, where it is stored in the kinds of quantities that could keep an army of tanks rolling. You don't just roll your tank regiment down to the local Shell station to filler'up. Well not generally. Especially not if what you're driving is an Abrams =)

[Kiero]

How about some sort of internet infrastructure? My country, Denmark, has an unusually high number of really really huge data centers. Those might not be much of a military objective - I simply don't know enough to be sure - but for modern information warfare, any chance to spread misinformation and fake news from seemingly legit sources might be well worth it.

Surely they've all got disaster recovery procedures in place such that (for example) dropping a big bomb on one of them won't cause the loss of all the data and processing power there? As in they'd fail over to another location some distance away?

[Mike_G]

What does field treatment for an arrow-wound look like? A real combat arrow with barbs and the works, still in the target and fully intact when the medic reaches them. What steps does the medic take, immediately and over relatively the short term? What changes if they know that hospitalization may not be available for several hours?

I'm equally interested in modern answers and period ones, if anyone here happens to know anything about medieval battlefield medicine.

Obviously this is going to vary quite a bit depending on where the arrow hit, so for the sake of simplicity let's assume no major arteries or organs have been penetrated (although if anyone feels able to go into that, I'd appreciate it even more).

Thanks.

In a modern field medic situation, if all depend on where the arrow is. In general, we woudln't pull it out in the field. That's a surgery thing back at the hospital/aid station. Pulling it out might just make the wound worse. We generally don't remove impaled objects of any kind if we can avoid it.

Immediate first aid would be to stabilize the arrow by bandaging around it so it wouldn't move, maybe cutting the excess shaft off to make it more feasible to move the patient without two feet of arrow jutting out of them. Then it's just bleeding control, maybe pain control. I'd want to immobilize the area of the wound, so the patient wouldn't move and make the arrow shift in the body, so splint a limb or what have you.

Then start an IV for volume replacement and eventually anitbiotics, and evacuate the patient to advanced care.

Actually removing an arrow is messy. You can push it though, if the barb is out the other side or very near the skin on the other side, which is less damaging than pulling it back the way iot came, or you can use special tools that go in along the shaft and hold the wound away from the barbs so you can pull it out. Then it's just bleeding control and infection control.